While there is a substantial body of literature exploring the influence of business incubation upon early stage firms, this debate remains almost entirely gender blind. This article challenges this assumption by adopting a feminist perspective to reveal business incubation as a gendered process shaping the identity work undertaken by women seeking legitimacy as technology venturers. In so doing, we critically evaluate prevailing normative analyses of the business incubation process and entrepreneurial legitimation. To illustrate this argument, we draw upon empirical evidence which reveals technology incubation as a legitimating induction process encouraging women to reproduce masculinized representations of the normative technology entrepreneur.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlH.J. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
2.
AhlH.J. & MarlowS. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end?Organization, 19(5), 543–562.
3.
AnthiasF. (2008). Thinking through the lens of translocational positionality: An intersectionality frame for understanding identity and belonging. Translocations: Migration and Social Change, 4(1), 5–20.
4.
AshcraftK.L. (2011). Knowing work through the communication of difference: A revised agenda for difference studies. In MumbyD.K. (Ed.), Reframing difference in organizational communication studies: Research, pedagogy, practice (pp. 3–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BeckC. (1992). The risk society. London: Sage.
6.
BjorkmanC., ChristoffI., PalmF., & VallinA. (1997). Women in computing. Exeter, U.K.: Intellectual Books.
7.
BojeD. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of storytelling performance in an office supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126.
8.
BradleyH. (2007). Gender. London: Polity Press.
9.
BruniA., GherardiS., & PoggioB. (2004). Entrepreneur–mentality, gender and the study of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 256–268.
10.
BruniA., GherardiS., & PoggioB. (2005). Gender and entrepreneurship: An ethnographic approach. London: Routledge.
11.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
CalásM., SmircichL., & BourneK.A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 552–569.
14.
CleggS. (2009). Doing power work. In BuchananD. & BrymanA. (Eds.), Sage book of organizational research methods (pp. 371–398). London: Sage.
15.
CollinsO.F. & MooreD.G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
16.
CornelissenJ., ClarkeJ., & CienkiC. (2012). Sense giving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International Small Business Journal, 30(3), 213–231.
17.
De ClercqD. & VoronovM. (2009). Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal, 27, 395–419.
18.
Díaz GarcíaC. & WelterF. (2013). Gender identities and practices: Interpreting women entrepreneurs’ narratives. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 384–403.
19.
DownS. (2006). Narratives of enterprise: Crafting entrepreneurial self identity in a small firm. London: Edward Elgar.
20.
DuberleyJ. & CarriganM. (2012). The career identities of “mumpreneurs”: Women's experiences of combining enterprise and motherhood. International Small Business Journal, doi: 10.1177/0266242611435182.
21.
DuberleyJ. & CohenL. (2010). Gendering career capital: An investigation of scientific careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 187–197.
22.
EssersC. & BenschopY. (2009). Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human Relations, 62(3), 403–423.
23.
FineC. (2010). Delusions of gender. London: Icon Books.
24.
GartnerW. (2010). A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on a use of narrative. International Small Business Journal, 28(1), 6–20.
25.
GiddensA. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
26.
GodwinL., StevensC., & BrennerN. (2006). Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing how mixed sex teams benefit women in male dominated contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 623–642.
27.
GolombiskyK. (2006). Gendering the interview: Feminist reflections on gender as performance in research. Women's Studies in Communication, 29, 165–192.
28.
GreenmanA. (2012). Entrepreneurial activities and occupational boundary work during venture creation. International Small Business Journal, 30(2), 115–138.
29.
HackettS.M. & DiltsD.M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.
30.
HancockA. (2007). When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79.
31.
HoggM.A. (2006). Social identity theory. In BurkeP.J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
HughesK., JenningsJ., BrushC., CarterS., & WelterF. (2012). Extending research in new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429–442.
33.
HyttiU. & MakiK. (2007). Which firms benefit most from the incubators?International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6, 506–523.
34.
IbarraH. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(6), 764–791.
35.
IbarraH. & BarbulescuR. (2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135–154.
36.
KelanE.K. (2009). Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(3), 197–210.
37.
KelanE.K. (2010). Gender logic and (un)doing gender at work. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(2), 174–194.
38.
KennyK. (2010). Beyond ourselves: Passion and the dark side of identification in an ethical organization. Human Relations, 63(6), 857–875.
39.
KristevaJ. & MenkeL. (1989). Language: The unknown: An initiation into linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.
LeviJ. (2006). Clothes don't make the man (or woman), but gender identity might. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15(1), 90–115.
42.
LewisP. & SimpsonR. (2010). Revealing and concealing gender. London: Palgrave.
43.
LockeK. (1996). A funny thing happened? The management of consumer emotions in service encounters. Organization Science, 7(1), 40–59.
44.
LohanM. & FaulknerW. (2004). Masculinities and technologies. Men and Masculinities, 6(4), 319–329.
45.
LounsburyM. & GlynnM.A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy and acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 545–564.
46.
Mac an GhaillM. & HaywoodC. (2007). Gender, culture and society. London: Palgrave.
47.
MacNabbA., McCoyJ., WeinreichP., & NorthoverM. (1993). Using Identity Structure Analysis (ISA) to investigate female entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5, 301–313.
48.
MarlowS. & McAdamM. (2012). Analysing the influence of gender upon high technology venturing within the context of business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 655–676.
49.
MartinJ. (2000). Hidden gendered assumptions in mainstream organizational theory and research. Journal of Management Enquiry, 9(2), 207–216.
50.
MaxwellJ.A. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In HubermanA.M. & MilesM.B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 37–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McRobbieA. (2009). The aftermath of feminism. London: Sage.
53.
MilesM.B. & HubermanA.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (pp. 10–12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
54.
NeergaardH., MarlowS., & FrederiksenS. (2011). The Emperor's New Clothes: Rendering a feminist theory of entrepreneurship visible. Paper presented at the 56th ICSB Conference, June Stockholm.
55.
OgborJ. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), 605–630.
56.
PattonD. (2013). Realizing potential: The impact of business incubation upon the absorptive capacity of new technology based firms. International Small Business Journal, doi: 10.1177/0266242613482134.
57.
PrattM. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
58.
RaduM. & Redien–CollotR. (2008). The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French press desirable and feasible models?International Small Business Journal, 26(3), 259–298.
59.
RiceM.P. (2002). Co–production of business assistance in business incubators: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 163–187.
60.
RindovaV., BarryD., & KetchenD. (2009). Entrepreneurship as emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491.
61.
ScillitoeJ.L. & ChakrabartiA.K. (2010). The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation, 30, 155–167.
62.
ServonL. & VisserM. (2011). Progress hindered: The retention and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 272–284.
ShireK. (2009). Gender and the conceptualisation of the knowledge economy. In WalbyM., GottfriedH., GottshallK., & OsawaM. (Eds.), Gendering the knowledge economy (pp. 51–79). London: Palgrave.
65.
SigglekowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
66.
SillinceJ. & BarkerJ. (2012). A tropological theory of institutionalization. Organization Studies, 33(1), 7–38.
67.
SmithJ.A. & EatoughV. (2006). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In BreakwellG., Fife–SchawC., HammondS., & SmithJ.A. (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (3rd ed., pp. 11–20). London: Sage.
68.
SmithR. & AndersonA.R. (2004). The devil is in the E–tail: Forms and structures in the entrepreneurial narratives. In HjorthD. & SteyaertC. (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship (pp. 125–143). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
69.
StoreyD. & GreeneF. (2010). Small business and entrepreneurship. London: Pearson.
SulsJ., MartinR., & WheelerL. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom and with what effect?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163.
72.
SveningssonS.F. & AlvessonM. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193.
73.
TornikoskiE. & NewbertS. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 311–335.
74.
TylerM. & CohenL. (2010). Spaces that matter: Gender performativity and organizational space. Organization Studies, 31(2), 175–198.
WatsonT.J. (2009). Narrative, life story and manager identity: A case study in autobiographical identity work. Human Relations, 62(3), 425–452.
78.
WatsonT.J. (2011). Ethnography, reality and truth: The vital need for students of “how things work” in organisations and management. Journal of Management Studies, 8(1), 202–216.
79.
WatsonT.J. (2013). Entrepreneurship in action: Bringing together the individual, organisational and institutional dimensions of entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Forthcoming.
80.
WoodfieldR. (2000). Women, work and computing. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
